On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 2:18 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2008/6/1 bobolozo bobolozo@yahoo.com:
A small fishing village in Cambodia, or a community of 100 people in Kenya, may well have no internet access at all, and if they have it, they would not likely be visiting the English wikipedia as they wouldn't likely speak English.
That doesn't really serve as a justification for express systematic bias (rather than the default systemic bias).
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Well, there is a line between "systemic bias" and "source bias". If secondary, reliable sources don't consider X important enough to write much about, we follow their lead, and do not write much. If they don't think X is important enough to write about at all, we follow their lead, and do not write anything at all. That's not our decision, and introducing anything beyond what sources do is introducing -our own- bias, regardless of how noble of motives such bias may be founded upon.